Spec lines and variants of a car

[jumbojimbo]

....it was to allow you to take an 83 model and put on stuff from later cars in order to make your 83 model identical to the newer car...

I don't see how that interpretation makes any sense back in the days of VIN numbers. because if I presented an 83 vin numbered car, didn't it have to be an 83 car? Not an 83 VIN car but built to an 84 car.

Or are you saying that as long as my vin number fell anywhere within the years and models on the spec line I could build it up and present it as any year and model on the spec line? Again, back in VIN days, could you really present a 1983 VIN numbered car and register for an event as an 84?

 

[JoshS]

I don't see how that interpretation makes any sense back in the days of VIN numbers. because if I presented an 83 vin numbered car, didn't it have to be an 83 car? Not an 83 VIN car but built to an 84 car.

Or are you saying that as long as my vin number fell anywhere within the years and models on the spec line I could build it up and present it as any year and model on the spec line? Again, back in VIN days, could you really present a 1983 VIN numbered car and register for an event as an 84?

The VIN rule stated:

The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) shall correspond with the automobile classified, and will determine the model and type for competition purposes.

So it was used to determine the model and type, but not (explicitly) used to determine the year. So in my opinion, yes, you could present a car with an '83 VIN and register for an event as an '84.

 

[Knestis]

Since the terms "update" and "backdate" are time-oriented terms, in my opinion, the purpose of the whole allowance is to allow mixing & matching of parts between model years of a single "model/type" ... thus allowing one sort of frankenstein (parts from multiple years) but disallowing a different sort of frankenstein (parts from multiple models/types).

The wording is definitely gray though.

This is a different way of saying what I meant. Thanks, J.

...doesn't that mean that last sentence doesn't add anything?

<adamsavage> Well, HERE'S your problem. </adamsavage>

There are plenty of places where the ITCS says, "You can do this - and by the way, you can't do this," simply restating, and sometimes BADLY, what it has already tried to say. We've fixed some of them but yeah, I kind of chocked that up to overclarificationism.

K

 

[Gary L]

As I believe has already been pointed out, some of this confusion is due to not having a definition of the terms "model" or "type", in the first place. But in some cases, the spec line descriptions are less than completely accurate, adding to the confusion. For instance, my car is spec'd as 142/144 2.0. Problem is, in the US market there were never just 142's or 144's. There was a "142S" sold from 69-72, and a "142E" sold from 71-74, the former with carbs and the latter with FI (of two types, BTW... D-Jet and K-Jet). Our spec line encompasses 1969-74, so all three induction variants are covered. It's probably a poster child for how not to classify a car.

Kirk - overclarificationism? Holy cow!

 

[quadzjr]

I don't know if it is the poster child but it sure is one of them. I think the 79-93 ITB mustang would be the poster child if there was one.

 

[JeffYoung]

This thing does turn on the definition of model -- I think you guys are right about that. And that term is undefined.

So I revise my opinion...lol....it sure looks to me like the intent was for Greg to be right, which was you couldn't build something, even using the same stuff off the spec line, that didn't come from the showroom floor as that -- sold on the showroom floor -- defined model.

But the more I think about it, it seems plausible the idea was to prevent there from being a hatchback with coupe brakes, etc....meaning anything on the spec line is fair game since the spec line defines "model."

This is something that we should sort out. It impacts at a lot of cars.

 

[Rud]

FWIW, here's how the Solo Street Prepared rules talk about update/backdate:

Equipment and/or speci​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

fications may be exchanged between different
years and models of a vehicle if (a) the item is standard on the
year/model from which it was taken, and (b) the years/ models are
listed on the same line of Appendix A (Street Prepared Classes). The
updated/backdated part or the part to which it is to be attached may
not be altered, modified, machined or otherwise changed to facilitate
the updating/backdating allowance. Standard factory installation
methods, locations, and confi gurations are allowed. The updating
and/or backdating of engines, transmissions, transaxles, and/or unibodies​

must be done as a unit; component parts of these units may​

not be interchanged.

-----------------------

When I read the "model/type" sentence in the IT rules, I interpret that to mean that I can't use update/backdate to build myself an '84 Borgward Convertible if no such animal existed.

 

[Rud]

Here's the Solo definition of "model," while I'm at it.

12.3 MODEL​

A group of cars of a given make which have virtually identical bodies
and chassis but are readily distinguished from other models of the same
make by virtue of a major difference in body appearance and/or chassis
design. The names by which the manufacturer designates these
groups have no bearing on this de​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

fi nition even though two groups may​

be designated identically.

(Before someone gets their knicker in a knot: yes, I realize that the Solo rules have nothing to do with the IT rules; I am posting these snippets as food for thought as people consider interpretation and/or re-writing the IT UD/BD section.)

 

[jumbojimbo]

Dang, I agree with Jeff Young twice in one day on two different boards. Creepy.

Jeff, think about this for your car, by Greg's definition (year matters) is there any way your car could ever be legal? Even off the showroom floor?

How can you have any idea which parts actually belong on your car from year to year? Even the manufacturer didn't know what parts they were putting on it from day to day. I know the TR7 isn't as bad as the TR6, but you know they changed parts and assemblies mid-year, some documented, some not. Some intentionally, some just because they had extras or ran out of others.

 

[lateapex911]

So, as it stands, you can take a 1989 Bumblebee Sprint, and if all are on the same spec line (which covers the 87 to 91s), you can use the 88 transmission which has better ratios, the 90 injection system which made better midreange torque and power, and the 91 hood and bumper which were lighter and more aero.

Those parts come from Bumplebee Sprint, GTs, STs and RTs.
But none were found on the same car, ever.

To me, that's making a model, as I see the model as being defined by the last two letters. heck the dealer charged more for the GTs than it did for the GLs....and the equipment was different. That is, to my eye, a "model"

But, yea the ITAC and the CRB before it, has considered that rule differently and classed accordingly.

As it stands, it's all about if they got it right at the start with the classing

 

[Eagle7]

So, as it stands, you can take a 1989 Bumblebee Sprint, and if all are on the same spec line (which covers the 87 to 91s), you can use the 88 transmission which has better ratios, the 90 injection system which made better midreange torque and power, and the 91 hood and bumper which were lighter and more aero.

None of which are used to set the weight of the car, so relative to the classification process, there is no performance advantage.

 

[quadzjr]

correct none are used during classing. The reason why is that during classing they only know stock hp, once you start swaping injection that changes the baseline in which they have to work with. Thusly it will be classed wrong, or the ITAC woudl have to know about this combination to determine the % gain expected.

Also having a lighter body work and a better tansmission is a performance gain, however that is beyond the current process.

 

[JeffYoung]

See what happens when you actually pay attention to what I'm saying rather than scream "f#$%ing douchebag?" lol....

TR7s/8s didn't really change that much, at least not like a 6. Only major change was the switchover from the 4 speed and Austin Marine rear end to the 5 speed and SD1 rear end (on the 7). Like mentioned above, the coupe bumpers are lighter than the converts.

For the 8, you got slightly bigger rotors, callipers, battery in the trunk, new subframe and V8. Everything else the same.

The only hard things to track down are cam specs really, so I run the most conservative of the "possible" cams to be safe. There is a later "fuel injection" cam that came on the Rover SD1s that PROBABLY came in my car in 81, but I've not confirmed it and that's really the only hard part to pin down on a yearly basis.

But I'm not sure Greg is saying that the model designation applies by year. He's saying something more basic that I agree with, still. And that is you can't use update/backdate to create something that was never available on the showroom floor.

At the same time, if the majority of membership thinks the rule should be interpreted differently, I think it's a grey enough area that we follow membership's wishes on it.

Dang, I agree with Jeff Young twice in one day on two different boards. Creepy.

Jeff, think about this for your car, by Greg's definition (year matters) is there any way your car could ever be legal? Even off the showroom floor?

How can you have any idea which parts actually belong on your car from year to year? Even the manufacturer didn't know what parts they were putting on it from day to day. I know the TR7 isn't as bad as the TR6, but you know they changed parts and assemblies mid-year, some documented, some not. Some intentionally, some just because they had extras or ran out of others.

 

[seckerich]

None of which are used to set the weight of the car, so relative to the classification process, there is no performance advantage.

And since we all know what car is referred to lets clear it up. All the really cool stuff for the second gen RX7 came out on ONE CAR (Model) the GTUs and the legal gear ratios are listed in the ITCS so that is a red herring. It was the best of everything and delivered that way from the factory. It was also used as the bogey for ITS power to weight so it is classed with the highest level build already.

Other models may vary, consult your manufacturer for details.

 

[Chip42]

if you put a 100% GTU equivalent RX7 together with a single exception (say a steel hood) would that car be legal?

if not then the UD/BD rule is overly restrictive in my mind and needs to be seriously rethaught.

this reading would make the following illegal as I undertsand it:
a later set of gears, replaced as a complete transmission asssebly, used in an older body where minor changes happened over the model run (79 RX7)

use of updated front brakes that accompanied a revised rear suspension geometry that DOES NOT bolt on to the earlier car and thus cannot be updated, though the revised brakes (rotor, caliper bracket, caliper - which is just a wider verison of the original to accomodate the wider rotor) DO bolt on to the earlier cars without other modifications and these are the brakes specified on the specline. (AW11 MR2)

others abound, I am sure.

 

[Rud]

So, as it stands, you can take a 1989 Bumblebee Sprint, and if all are on the same spec line (which covers the 87 to 91s), you can use the 88 transmission which has better ratios, the 90 injection system which made better midreange torque and power, and the 91 hood and bumper which were lighter and more aero.

Those parts come from Bumplebee Sprint, GTs, STs and RTs.
But none were found on the same car, ever.

To me, that's making a model, as I see the model as being defined by the last two letters. heck the dealer charged more for the GTs than it did for the GLs....and the equipment was different. That is, to my eye, a "model"

It looks to me like you're defining "model" as "trim line," which somewhat makes sense, since a lot of cars in IT are classed by trim line rather than model (Si/non-Si Civics, for example). However, your definition would basically eliminate the update/backdate allowance, though, wouldn't it?

It seems to me (as an outsider, looking to eventually get into the category), that adopting the Solo wording would be unambiguous: "Frankenstein" cars are explicitly legal, as long as the pieces come off cars in the same spec line and don't require modification to fit.

 

[dickita15]

I have been thinking about Greg’s questions about the purpose of the model/type line in the rules and its original intent and I wonder if back in the day spec lines might have more variety within them. I think now update backdate is very much considered when deciding what goes on one spec line but it is possible that was not the case long ago and far away.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

If you took an S5 RX7 and put S4 bumpers on it, you didn't create a model, you just BD'd legally. You can do that with any damn 'assembly' you choose, per the ITCS.

Make: Mazda
Model: RX7
Trim/Package: GTUs

 

[Chip42]

If you took an S5 RX7 and put S4 bumpers on it, you didn't create a model, you just BD'd legally. You can do that with any damn 'assembly' you choose, per the ITCS.

Make: Mazda
Model: RX7
Trim/Package: GTUs

I'd agree. but apparently others would not. A rule that is understood so differently to so many intelligent, reasonable people is a rule that needs to be rewritten or clarified with governing definitions. we can all sit here and say what we think or "know" or believe or feel that it means, but it comes down to interpretation and only about 5% of the IT paddock of any given race is ON this forum (at best) so it won't do any good for us to do so even if we miracle ourselves a consensus. this needs to be an ITAC/CRB request.

oh look, letter #5434

9.1.3.C, Paragraph 2:
"To maintain the stock basis of Improved Touring, updating and/or backdatingof components is only permitted within cars of the same make,model, body type (e.g., sedan, station wagon, convertible, etc.), andengine size as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line.Any updated/backdated components shall be substituted as a completeassembly (engine long block, transmission/transaxle, induction system,differential/axle housing). No interchange of parts between assembliesis permitted, and all parts of an assembly shall be as originally producedfor that assembly (such parts may, however, be coated, painted orplated). Additionally, it is not permitted to “create” a model or type ofcar by updating or backdating assemblies. Parts or assemblies which themanufacturer lists in factory service manuals or parts guides for a particularmodel which supersede or replace original parts or assemblies arepermitted. Documentation of the superseding parts or assemblies must besupplied to the Club Racing Department and the appropriate part numberslisted on that particular model’s specification line."

has been variously interpreted and needs clarification. Assemblies, as defined, are at times updated through a model run on the same make/model/body type/engine size from a given specline, and the use of such an assembly with other assemblies could result in a configuration never offered for sale.

the question is if this comingled "best of the breed" is permitted assuming it satisfies all of the requirements for make/model/body type/engine size from a given specline, or if such a combination results in the "creation of a model or type of car", or where the line is between these readings.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'd agree. but apparently others would not. A rule that is understood so differently to so many intelligent, reasonable people is a rule that needs to be rewritten or clarified with governing definitions. we can all sit here and say what we think or "know" or believe or feel that it means, but it comes down to interpretation and only about 5% of the IT paddock of any given race is ON this forum (at best) so it won't do any good for us to do so even if we miracle ourselves a consensus. this needs to be an ITAC/CRB request.

oh look, letter #5434

I disagree. If you look at the IT paddocks across the country, I'd say they agree with the common interpretation.

It's not about people cheating to make their cars faster, it's about legally interchanging parts within their spec line.

Under this intorturtation, all UD/BD is illegal because NO car that wasn't as delivered for it's model year or 100% converted to another trim level wouldn't meet the thought process... Actually rendering the rule moot, no?

If there is some combination of parts that EXCEED the IT-performance envelope of the top car on the spec line, then the cars need to be on separate spec lines.

The RX7 is a great example of a spec line that 'works' but can be both confusing AND could easily be broken out into 2 lines (IT'S and ITA).